Belated Homecoming

DOMESTIC RELATIONS

After Harold Painter's wife died in an automobile accident in 1962, he sent his son Mark to live temporarily with the boy's maternal grandparents. When Painter remarried, two years later, he sought to get Mark back. To his surprise, the grandparents refused. To his shock the Iowa Supreme Court agreed that Mark should not live with his father. Writer-Photographer Painter, said the court, is "either an agnostic or an atheist and has no concern for formal religious training." Life with him "would be unstable, unconventional, arty, bohemian." The boy should remain in the custody of his more "conventional" grandparents, Mr. and Mrs. Dwight Bannister, both in their sixties.

Legal scholars were incredulous at the ruling (TIME, Feb. 25, 1966). But even an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was turned down. Angry and stymied, Painter wrote a book about his plight (Mark, I Love You). There was little else he could do. Then, two months ago, Mark's grandparents agreed to allow the boy a visit with his father, who is now living near Santa Cruz, Calif. Once Mark arrived, Painter filed suit in California to keep him. Mark had told him, "I've made up my mind, Hal. I want to stay in California. I've always been with you anyway."

Upset though they were, the Bannisters finally agreed not to fight the suit if a minister they sent as an emissary could interview the boy to determine if he were happy with his dad. The minister was satisfied, and last week a California judge ruled that Mark, now ten, can stay home.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.